So regardless of what Saban’s agenda is or isn’t, saying he’s trying to create a competitive advantage for his defense through a rules change is a stretch.

The competitive advantage he has created goes back to the way he has recruited and developed players.

Nobody’s saying Saban’s trying to create a competitive advantage with the 10-second substitution rule proposal. He’s simply trying to keep the one he’s already got – you know, the one Low references in his second sentence. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

But the reality is that Saban’s advantage is hard to construct and expensive to maintain, which is why it’s one that few programs can match. While that makes it worthy of a strong defense on Saban’s part, it also makes it harder to support if others lacking in Alabama’s resources are able to level the playing field on any given Saturday with greater strategic creativity.

But for some of us, this isn’t about pro-Nick or anti-Nick. What’s bad for Nick Saban isn’t necessarily what’s best for CFB. Preventing defenses from substituting wasn’t really possible prior to 2008, and I am not sure I like the idea of making it a permanent part of the game. I just feel like we’ve hit a tipping point in rule changes that favor offenses. Maybe that debate can rise from the ashes of the 10-second debacle.

Let me just say that emulating the NFL rule, by changing the college rule so that the clock doesn’t stop after a first down, would be a huge mistake. That is NOT a solution to the problem Redding refers to in this article, and to which I and others have pointed to, which is ‘insane pace’ that has created fundamental inequity in the game.

The clock-stop on first downs is one the great basic characteristics that distinguishes college football. It enables great endings to games, in large numbers. And that’s something the NFL can’t do. I’m not sure at this point what the best solution is, but going back to the 25-second clock, and all that goes with that, would certainly solve the problem, and we already know it would work.

{FWIW, the NFL rules are inferior to college rules anyway, IMHO, and have been for years. Why anyone would want to emulate the NFL is mind-boggling. College rules have always been better thought-out, at least until this current episode. As Redding said, offensive advantage was anticipated in 2008, but nobody foresaw what we have now.}

Stopping the clock on first downs would only further screw up the game. Going back to the 2008 game is a much-preferred solution. The difference in what the game would be like, would be as night is to day. But I suspect there’s an even better solution. If not, we could always go back, since the game then was just as exciting then as it is now, and without insane pace and ridiculous games that resemble basketball. And most of all, without loss of basic fairness and integrity.

{BTW, it doesn’t hurt that Richt will be on the rules committee that decides this, either. He’ll be a stabilizing force of good sense, which is obviously needed.}

Going back to the 2008 game is a solution that should be given benchmark status. Make something else beat that. Given the current lack of leadership in college football, it’s nice that at least one player in this discussion, Rogers Redding, has thought of it.
~~~

Who really gives a crap about him (other than himself and the Tide nut cases.) Outrecruiting is much easier when you have low ethics and play with numbers. How can you not be more successful when you get to view and cut 25% more players per year? That is a lot of mulligans.